Main menu

Post navigation

Can Science Explain Various Undetectable Data?

Scientists in embrace natural means for the cause of specialized information in the Universe likes to portray themselves above Christians and religious people in general. The reality is, many theories in science goes by faith. One rarely sees a theory in naturalism abandoned once falsified data is discovered even on a regular basis. Generally, the theory is only gets revised, sometimes many times over. This is because of the popularity of these particular theories have in secular science.

All branches of science have this problem, these examples come from one of my favorite subjects, astronomy…

The Multi-Universe hypothesis states that outside of our observable universe there is an undetermined amount of other universes. National Geographic claims there is new proof in detecting this idea…

“Dark flow” is no fluke, suggests a new study that strengthens the case for unknown, unseen “structures” lurking on the outskirts of creation…In 2008 scientists reported the discovery of hundreds of galaxy clusters streaming in the same direction at more than 2.2 million miles (3.6 million kilometers) an hour. This mysterious motion can’t be explained by current models for distribution of mass in the universe. So the researchers made the controversial suggestion that the clusters are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe.”

There is a common argument leveled against creationists in this report, but used for to allegedly prove the muli-universe hypothesis. “This mysterious motion can’t be explained by current models…so researcher made the controversial suggestion” sound familiar? Creationists say, evolution can’t explain the origin of information nor the means to create specified information (like a computer program) to create DNA, therefore makes the conclusion it’s from intelligence, namely God! Looks like some secular scientists are hypocritical and hold to a double standard. There is a lot of evidence in various breaches of science which verifies creationism unlike the multi-universe hypothesis.

This is not all, an up and coming theory in terms of money and non-detectable data is focusing on building more detectors.

“The XENON100 detector is an instrumented vat, about the size of a stockpot — 12 inches in diameter and 12 inches tall — holding 220 pounds of frigid liquid xenon. It is, in effect, a traffic surveillance camera that can record the occasional, if very infrequent, collision between a dark matter particle and a xenon atom.”

Why is there such a push for detection of dark matter? Cosmologists require more dark matter than what is believed to be detected. How much is that alledged detection? Only 17 percent! How can this theory be called a fact when 83 percent of it hasn’t been detected? How much evidence constitutes a fact rather than an idea? Quite frankly, much of money used for trying to detect dark matter could be used for planetary exploration which is observable and we would learn much more from it.

Speaking of planets, the Dynamo Theory is another, one of which has been discussed briefly in this blog. After an attempt to justify this theory, phys.org reports…

“But scientists’ understanding of dynamo theory has been complicated by recent discoveries of magnetized rocks from the moon and ancient meteorites, as well as an active dynamo field on Mercury – places that were thought to have perhaps cooled too quickly or be too small to generate a self-sustaining magnetic field. It had been thought that smaller bodies couldn’t have dynamos because they cool more rapidly and are therefore more likely to have metallic cores that do not stay in liquid form for very long.”

This theory has long been falsified and should be abandon for a better theory that explains what we see but it only remains through revisions (fitting the data into a theory rather than the theory showing the data) because it still popular among secular scientists. More story telling with this theory because the theory requires it, “According to Weiss, the finding suggests that sustaining a magnetic field like the one on Earth might not require a large, cooling core that constantly moves liquid and creates currents, but could also be somehow generated by the cores of smaller bodies like planetesimals – some of which are only 160 kilometers wide.”

Noticed the word, “somehow” is used. Practicing stricter empirical science is rare these days because it restricts too much of their imagination which they use to tell the public that what they mean is “factual” rather than just an idea or complete guesswork on their part. Can science explain various undetectable data? The answer is “no” it cannot for how can one explain when it cannot be observe nor be understood? Data must be detected either directly or indirect in order for science to work and this is why it works better in creationism rather than evolution!

13 thoughts on “Can Science Explain Various Undetectable Data?”

How can this theory be called a fact when 83 percent of it hasn’t been detected? How much evidence constitutes a fact rather than an idea? Quite frankly, much of money used for trying to detect dark matter could be used for planetary exploration which is observable and we would learn much more from it.

Thank you for your interest in science. Theories are never called facts. Theories explain the facts.

Successful scientific theories are testable, falsifiable, have predictive power and have applications which further scientific knowledge.

Please name 1 way in which creation “science” can be tested.
Please name 1 way in which creation “science” can be falsified.
Please name 1 prediction creation “science” has made which has been fulfilled.
Please name 1 application of creation “science”.

Applications of Creation “Science” (Hovind): “I think when a doctor cuts open somebody to do an appendectomy, they would expect to find the appendix on roughly the same place on everybody they cut open, evidence that the designer has put it in the same place…”

Michael: “Scientists in embrace natural means for the cause of specialized information in the Universe likes to portray themselves above Christians and religious people in general. ”

Well, no. Which does not mean I should not comment on all the nonsense you write in this blog, with very little knowledge on the subjects you are writing about.
Such comments do not imply that I would be ‘above’ you, or anyone else. I’m just stating the obvious: you are writing nonsense.

And then we are still waiting for those answer to our earlier questions: what are your scientific credentials, Michael ??
Not that it matter as an argument, in my opinion, but you seem to think so yourself.

You do not understand evolution, or science for that matter. Religion has brought you to creationism and it seems clear to me that you have not studied the evidence yourself.

Lee Strobel, Atheist-turned-creationist…If your statement was true then, Lee would still be an atheist. Your understanding of people which comes from defensive story telling in general is faulty. Yes, I have had evolution in high school and college…

Tim agrees with this statement, “Theories are never called facts. Theories explain the facts.”

The answer was this particular article…

“This mysterious motion can’t be explained by current models for distribution of mass in the universe. So the researchers made the controversial suggestion that the clusters are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe.”

Actually, evidence for the muli-universe theory was not based on any facts rather models were unable to explain mass says National Geographic. You like National Geographic don’t you? You believe National Geographic has an understanding of evolution when reporting, don’t you? As far a creationism, it’s model suggests the Universe is young not billions of years old, this is a testable example…

Take Saturn’s rings, “Dynamical effects that take place, happens in a matters of days or hours. For example, the F-ring which has a series of ringlets outside the main rings, where streamers of material get pulled out when the small moon Prometheus passes by.”The reason why Saturn’s rings look young is because they are young…

Venus is another example, it was deemed to be the twin of Earth, but it’s nowhere similar. For instance, we don’t observe plate tectonics and active geology on Venus like we do on Earth. In fact, today’s Venus is very different from the 1960s. The surface has been deemed young including such things as craters, volcanoes, lava flows. Although too young for those who believe in an old Universe so they came up with this idea to counter what they are observing, they have suggested that 90% of the planet’s history was erased by recent resurfacing events. My question is, by what mechanism? Whatever evidence might exist for it is buried under lava. So again, this theory is not explaining any facts on the surface of Venus rather it’s just trying to rescue itself…

As far a creationism, it’s model suggests the Universe is young not billions of years old, this is a testable example…

Take Sabrina Elizabeth Avolio, who was born on March 25th 2010. Even tracing back to roughly nine months ago to when she was conceived does not help the case for a billions old universe, but does fit in with a much younger universe that is less than a year old. The reason why Elizabeth looks young is because she is young…

Applications of Creation “Science” (Hovind): “I think when a doctor cuts open somebody to do an appendectomy, they would expect to find the appendix on roughly the same place on everybody they cut open, evidence that the designer has put it in the same place…”

Applications of Creation “Science” (Hovind): “I think when a doctor cuts open somebody to do an appendectomy, they would expect to find the appendix on roughly the same place on everybody they cut open, evidence that the designer has put it in the same place…”

Michael: “Scientists in embrace [sic] natural means for the cause of specialized [sic] information in the Universe likes [sic] to portray themselves above Christians and religious people in general. The reality is, many theories in science goes [sic] by faith.”

FINALLY WE HAVE COME TO THE GRAVAMEN OF MICHAEL’S PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE.

No, Michael. Your particular sense of inferiority, although justified, is self-inflicted. We might call it agnosia autopathica—the willful refusal to know. Past a certain threshold, this condition is often mistaken for sheer stupidity.

Your delusion is disproven by example. Francis Ayala, evolutionary geneticist and scourge of creationism,[1] is a Roman Catholic priest. Not only that—he recently won the $1.5M Templeton Prize, given annually for “an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” Evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller[2] is the author of Finding Darwin’s God. Francis Collins, newly head of NIH, wrote The Language of God. The American Scientific Affiliation is a a large and longstanding group of scientists who assemble to find spirituality in science—and who oppose creationism.

Is ignorance really bliss? Michael seems quite unhappy to me.

==============

[1] He testified against creationism in the landmark Edwards v Aguillar court trial.

[2] One of the chief witnesses against intelligent design in Kitzmiller v Dover.

What makes Michael think that Lee Strobel has studied the evidence for evolution? Let’s see. He has degrees in journalism and “law studies” (whatever that is). He has been a megachurch pastor. Hm. He has written three “Case for…” books on Christian apologetics. “The Case for a Creator” derives all of its soi-disant scientific material from Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Guilliermo Gonzalez, and Stephen Meyer of the Dishonesty Institute, and from Robin Collins, a philosophy professor at a Bible college, and J.P. Moreland, a Christian apologist and William Lane Craig, a theologian, both with zero scientific credentials. This is like forming a theological opinion by consulting Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

But Michael is sure that, if they had in fact studied the evidence, they would have been unconvinced. He is sure that if he himself had ever studied the evidence, he would remain unconvinced. But this is idle speculation, because none of them know anything about evolution. Or cosmology. or anything else remotely scientific.

.

On the same grounds, I am sure that if I had ever tasted eel, I wouldn’t like it. (Actually, i was sure of that for decades, until I did taste it. And then found that I do actually like it. Lutefisk, however….)

Take Saturn’s rings, “Dynamical effects that take place, happens [sic] in a matters of days or hours. For example, the F-ring which has a series of ringlets outside the main rings, [sic] where streamers of material get pulled out when the small moon Prometheus passes by.”The reason why Saturn’s rings look young is because they are young…

What a crock.According to this logic, Saturn’s rings are only “days or hours” old. Once again, note the non sequitur—anything that happens rapidly is young.

Methinks Michael is showing more and more symptoms of desperation. (One of these symptoms, I’ve noticed, is degraded grammar. Observant readers might look for that.)